Hello, LittleMarkR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Heidi Cruz has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Hi LittleMarkR! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Osarius (talk).
You just told me to read the article about Heidi Cruz that falsely claims that she is still a Seventh Day Adventist. I have read that article and several others. She was raised a 7th Day Advent, but converted to her husband's religion of Southern Baptist. You are the one that needs to read more. Please read the following article before you edit the article again:
She now shares her husband's religious affiliation.[1]
Please do your homework before you lecture other editors--just a thought. -- ML (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore MaverickLittle's rude manner. It was uncalled for. He's been reminded that such behavior is not appropriate or acceptable [1]. -- WV ● ✉✓ 22:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikilevi thinks he is an admin and he is not. Also, please note that my comment was not rude. I just pointed a flat out fact. You made two editors (both falsely claiming that Heidi Cruz is a Seventh Day Adventist when she is clearly a Southern Baptist and the reliable sources support this) which were wrong and I corrected them and then you reverted me again without paying any attention to the reliable sources that I provided to you. I needed to tell you that and that is a fact, no matter what Wikilevi says or thinks. He is wrong.--ML (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop attacking editors, MaverickLittle. And just for the record, no, I know I am not an Admin. In fact, I would never want to be one. What I am, however, is a member of the Wikipedia Community. As a member of that community, I have the right to correct the errors of others. That included violating policy on biting newcomers. LittleMarkR, MaverickLittle is the one in the wrong here. Your edit may have not been the best, but every new editor makes mistakes and nothing you did "broke" Wikipedia or was egregious. ML appears to forget that. -- WV ● ✉✓ 23:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop acting like you are an admin Winkelvi. You are not one. Also, you are absolutely wrong. LittleMarkR was engaging in edit warring by reverting me and refusing to READ the reliable sources that made his comments flat out false. LittleMarkR, for your future information do not follow Winkelvi's advise going forward. He is making false statements. You were editing in a edit warring manner and it was uncalled for and I corrected it. Now, Winkelvi might not like it, but that is just his incorrect opinion. You need to READ the reliable sources that other editors provide you before you automatically revert what other editors are doing. I repeat do not listen to Winkelvi. He can be wrong at times and this is one of those times. However, even when he is clearly wrong he will not admit it and he will repeat himself over and over, even though he is not correct. Do not get into that habit.--ML (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making accusations you can't back up with factual evidence, ML. I'm neither acting like an admin, nor do I think I am one. If you were so concerned about "edit warring" (as you claim), why no edit warring warning on this editor's talk page, rather, just threats, aggressive comments, and biting of a newcomer. Regardless, welcome to Wikipedia, LittleMarkR. My apologies that you have been attacked wrongly and needlessly. Just know that such behavior is against Wikipedia policy. -- WV ● ✉✓ 00:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LittleMarkR: You were engaging in edit warring. Do not listen to this other editor named Winkelvi. He is telling you false information. He will repeat it over and over but that does not make it true. Do not engage in edit warring. Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--ML (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not blocked
Mark, you have not been blocked. You do, however, need to stop reverting edits at the Heidi Cruz article. If you continue, you may end up being blocked from editing. It is also not a good idea to remove a valid infobox photo without first discussing your concerns at the article talk page. Someone left you a Wikipedia welcome a while back. I suggest you read that message again and click on the helpful links in that message that will help you understand how Wikipedia works and how to become a valuable contributor. You really don't want to run afoul of policy as doing so will cause you to eventually be blocked. Edit smart, okay? -- WV ● ✉✓ 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I give up on trying to fix the article, but I just don't want them to use that offensive photo.
March 2016
Your recent editing history at Heidi Cruz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- WV ● ✉✓ 01:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not revert that photo back out again or make any more reversions of edits at the Heidi Cruz article. If you do so, you will end up being reported for edit warring and will likely be blocked for at least 24 hours from editing. You don't want to start your editing career in Wikipedia out with a block for violating the policy on WP:3RR. -- WV ● ✉✓ 01:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To hell with all of you. Wikipedia is a joke.
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Edit warring is not the way to solve issues on Wikipedia. Once your block is up you can continue to contribute, but continuing to edit war will result in you getting a longer block. Also, be careful about statements like this one. While Wikipedia is not censored, getting angry is unlikely to make it easier for you to collaborate well with others. Now as far as the photograph goes, it's not something that I'd see as offensive. It's blurry and not the best picture, but it's the best that Wikipedia has to offer. Barring the Cruzes (or someone who represents them) donating a photo to Wikipedia or someone taking their own picture and doing the same, there's not much that we can do about the photo. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
or 
) located above the edit window.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LittleMarkR reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
